• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

The Dark Knight Rises Batman: A symbol of hope or of vengeance..?

I'm with many that love all 3 films, yet feel that the third contradicts the 2nd movie. Batman scolds the copy cats for putting on Bat suits in TDK, and tells Alfred while being sown up that that was not what he meant about inspiring ppl; yet in TDKR all of a sudden anyone can be Batman.:huh:

Batman has always been about Vengeance; "to use fear against those who would prey on the fearful" as Bruce tells Ducard in BB.

Superman, Cap America; those are heroes who inspire hope..not Batman.....
 
Bruce's Batman was about using fear. Blake was naturally more disciplined than some random copycats. One of them had a shotgun, I believe, whereas Blake had a moment similar to Bruce's where he rejected the use of the gun. Batman is now the hero with a face that Bruce wanted Harvey to be in TDK.

Anyone can be a hero, but not every hero is Batman. To Bruce, Jim Gordon was a hero. That's what he meant by his parting words with Gordon.
 
Bruce is a flawed human being. In tdk he is still focused on his own revenge -only he can do it. Throughout the course of movie three, he comes to understand the value of others, and let's go of his own need for revenge, and instead sees it as a greater cause that needs more than just one individual, the way Gordon had helped him throughout the years. He grows. It's a great and very natural arc, not impervious to flaws in his logic.
 
Why can't Batman be about both? Vengeance against those who prey on the fearful and being a symbol to give hope on the ones that have been preyed on.
 
I really just hated the thought of Blake all along. I mean why makes Bruce Wayne in this last movie such a quitter. He was just a flat out loser in this movie. The first two were brilliant. This one he just whined and got beat up a lot. This series could not have ended any worse for my favorite character Bruce Wayne. You meet up with a cop for about a day and a half and he is your succesor. Oh, boy. Blake was downright annoying. Knowing, way too much, in on almost every scene. I love JGL but this was his worst performance. Blake deserved nothing more than a thank you from Batman. Why did Batman trust him so much? Because he believed in Batman, how does that make you worthy? I just don't get it and hated Blake. If, Blake was not in this movie and you told me JGL would be cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman I would be like heck yeah. But I don't want to see his character ever again. PLEASE!!

I agree with the OP btw.
 
Gordon trusted Blake, for what its worth. In what way was Bruce a quitter? He returned to fight Bane rather than leaving him to the U.S. Army. Catwoman told him he could've left Gotham and yet he chose to remain to lead the assault on Bane.
 
Anyone can be a hero, but not every hero is Batman.


Although perhaps not strictly adhering to the same reasoning as the aforementioned statement; it does remind me of a quote that Buddha is thought to have said:

"Not everyone can or wants to be a Buddhist, but everyone is a Buddha."
 
Last edited:
The Dark Knight Trilogy has religious undertones all over it. Lines like: "As a man I am a flesh and blood, but as a symbol, I can be everlasting", "Sometimes the truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded", "I'm still a believer of the Batman"

As Kevin Smith put it, Nolan made Batman die for our sins! :) - I definitely think this version of Batman is a symbol of hope.

The way I see it, Bruce Wayne had created a pseudo religion in being Batman. He inspired people out of apathy, to essentially be better people, and will forever be reminded by the bat-logo - even kids are drawing it with chalk on the streets. Bruce Wayne even offered a "clean slate" to Catwoman - that has Jesus written all over it. So yeah, definitely hope! They established in "Batman Begins" that revenge wasn't the answer - that it wouldn't be justice.
 
So yeah, definitely hope! They established in "Batman Begins" that revenge wasn't the answer - that it wouldn't be justice.

This.

I have never understood where the interpretation of Batman as a symbol for vengeance comes from.

If he wanted vengence, then he would have become like Marvel's Punisher.

Even in Batman Forever movie, Bruce tells Robin that vengence is not the correct path, same in Nolan's Trilogy. Bat Signal is a symbol of hope for Gotham's citizens.

In TDKR, the chalk Bat drawn by gotham's citizens is a symbol for hope.

christopher-nolan-the-dark-knight-rises-e1344418070942.jpg
 
yet in TDKR all of a sudden anyone can be Batman.:huh:

This has got to be one of the most misquoted lines of the film. The line is "Batman could be anyone...that was the point.". It's not the same thing. There's no contradiction with the second film, Bruce never wanted people to play dress up and imitate him. The purpose of Batman was twofold: To strike fear into the hearts of the criminals and corrupt and to give Gotham hope with the thought someone was fighting for them and it could be anyone...the simple reassurance that good exists in a city that was crippled by corruption.

Also, in TDK when Brian Douglass asks Batman what the difference between the two of them is and Batman responds, "I'm not wearing hockey paaaads", it always just seemed like a joke and throw away line. But with the ending in TDKR in mind, it actually becomes much more sincere, seeing as Bruce's method of passing the torch was literally just handing over all his tools of the trade.
 
Agreed! I get the feeling Bruce would be okay as Batman in hockey pads too though. :)
 
This has got to be one of the most misquoted lines of the film. The line is "Batman could be anyone...that was the point."
Exactly, and not "ANYONE could be Batman". There is quite a difference in meaning.

There's no contradiction with the second film, Bruce never wanted people to play dress up and imitate him.
Once again, correct. Not to mention they used automatic weapons, and were basically "Punisher" versions of Batman.

The purpose of Batman was twofold: To strike fear into the hearts of the criminals and corrupt and to give Gotham hope with the thought someone was fighting for them and it could be anyone
Yup. The symbol of the bat was used as Bruce's projected inner fear onto those of Gotham's underbelly. His ultimate purpose is to inspire the good of Gotham, just as his father did in his philanthropic endeavours, but Bruce can only do it at first channeling his rage as the vigilante. Fear is his weapon in his personal war on terror and crime. It's the Zorro like concept. A man who uses his symbol of fear onto the opressors, but as a symbol of liberator to the oppressed.
 
"Batman could be anyone..."

I'll never fathom why people assume the quote means: 'anyone can replace and/or be Batman'. That's just not the case. Batman, in essence, was purely a symbol for inspiration and hope [to the citizens of Gotham]. Similar to Ra's teachings ("The training is nothing! The will is everything! The will to act.."), Bruce's perception of Batman was one that showcased to the world that a single man can make a difference by standing up against injustice, evil and corruption.
 
Not in these films he wasn't.

The first thing he learnt before he even became Batman was that vengeance was not to be pursued. When Ducard tells him that revenge is the solution to his problems, he replies "it's no use to me".

He learnt his lesson from Rachel. Revenge and justice are never the same.

Batman (in this trilogy anyway) is about justice and hope, not about vengeance, which is about "making you feel better". Bruce only wanted to make his city feel better.

Exactly. I'm surprised many seem to be having trouble grasping this interpretation of Batman.
 
This has got to be one of the most misquoted lines of the film. The line is "Batman could be anyone...that was the point.". It's not the same thing. There's no contradiction with the second film, Bruce never wanted people to play dress up and imitate him. The purpose of Batman was twofold: To strike fear into the hearts of the criminals and corrupt and to give Gotham hope with the thought someone was fighting for them and it could be anyone...the simple reassurance that good exists in a city that was crippled by corruption.

Also, in TDK when Brian Douglass asks Batman what the difference between the two of them is and Batman responds, "I'm not wearing hockey paaaads", it always just seemed like a joke and throw away line. But with the ending in TDKR in mind, it actually becomes much more sincere, seeing as Bruce's method of passing the torch was literally just handing over all his tools of the trade.

Exactly. In BB on the jet with Alfred, he distinctly says that he wants to inspire the people out of apathy. Blake was only the most recent candidate but Dent was the spiritual successor Bruce was searching for. Had he not gone crazy, Batman would've ceased operation after only 1 year, just like he did at the beginning of TDKR because he wasn't necessary.

I don't understand how people keep mixing this version of Batman up with the comic, This Bruce Wayne never wanted to be Batman forever. Never. He wanted to show that he could make a difference, and that the citizens could too, if they just stood up for justice. He didn't quit, as that would imply he left something undone or not finished. Every formidable threat he faced, he defeated.

With Bane's plan essentially crippling Gotham into starting over, he saw the opportunity for himself to start over as well, with a new, young man ready to do what's necessary. He now understands that Gotham will always need some form of protection outside of the law that's incorruptible. Blake is that man, a man partially inspired by Wayne's example. Mission accomplished...
 
Exactly. In BB on the jet with Alfred, he distinctly says that he wants to inspire the people out of apathy. Blake was only the most recent candidate but Dent was the spiritual successor Bruce was searching for. Had he not gone crazy, Batman would've ceased operation after only 1 year, just like he did at the beginning of TDKR because he wasn't necessary.

I don't understand how people keep mixing this version of Batman up with the comic, This Bruce Wayne never wanted to be Batman forever. Never. He wanted to show that he could make a difference, and that the citizens could too, if they just stood up for justice. He didn't quit, as that would imply he left something undone or not finished. Every formidable threat he faced, he defeated.

With Bane's plan essentially crippling Gotham into starting over, he saw the opportunity for himself to start over as well, with a new, young man ready to do what's necessary. He now understands that Gotham will always need some form of protection outside of the law that's incorruptible. Blake is that man, a man partially inspired by Wayne's example. Mission accomplished...

Amen brother
 
Why call him Batman then? Nolan just dismissed comics because he felt they were to stupid. Bruce Wayne is obsessed with Batman period. Anything less than that is not okay in my book. The movie would have been classic if you saw he was obssesed with Batman for the past 8 years and is tired. If, he quits after fighting Bane, then that is ok.
 
Why call him Batman then? Nolan just dismissed comics because he felt they were to stupid. Bruce Wayne is obsessed with Batman period.

Before TDKR, I'd argue to hell and back that Nolan's Bruce was obsessed with Batman because TDK really sent the message Bruce was in this for the long haul. Rachel not waiting for him any more because she's sure he'll always need Batman whether Gotham does or not. The Joker said he and Batman were destined to do battle forever.

Nolan wasn't being subtle here. However I don't know where you get the notion Nolan dismissed the comics because he felt they were stupid. What are you basing that on? Please don't tell me it's just because Bruce retired.
 
To me Nolan just feels that the comics of Batman were childish and not interesting.
Here are a few points.
1. Batman is not obsessed with Batman.
2.Batman never really grieves over his parents. You hear more of his love for Gotham.
3. Selina never interacted with Cats.
4. Gotham cleans itself up?
5. Bane with no venom?
6. Alfred leaves Bruce? That would never happen.
7.Batman takes 8 years off.
8. The disrespect of Robin. Why Robin is necessary.
Just a few points. but, I really get the feeling Nolan dissmisses comics for his own vision. I really feel he belives his Batman is bigger than the comics. I get that feeling from Bruce Wayne quiting at the end to go with John Blake. Ugh. Why?
 
What is this I don't even...he looks like a bat, is afraid of bats, and wants to use his fear of bats against criminals/corrupt officials. What do you want Bruce to call himself?

@The Joker: More on your opinion on Bruce's relationship with Batman in TDK! I had the opposite reaction--he saw the light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak, before Joker turned up. Then he was full-on obsessive Batman-mode because he wanted to put an end to Joker's chaos and have Harvey become a legitimate symbol of justice for Gotham.
 
Batman inspires a lot of damn hope to the citizens of Gotham, when you take into account that they live in the most corrupt, decadent, crime-infested, diseased, injust, and morally bankrupt city in the world.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"